UK wins legal battle against Rwanda over migrant deal
The UK will not have to pay Rwanda millions of pounds over the failed migrant deportation deal after winning a case at The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Netherlands.
Rwanda had sued Britain for more than £100 million following a three-day hearing in March, claiming the UK breached the terms of their agreement.
During proceedings, the court heard that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, on his first day in office in July 2024, described the Rwanda scheme as “dead and buried,” although the government did not formally withdraw from the agreement until December 2025.
Rwanda argued that it was therefore entitled to two outstanding payments from 2024 and 2025 under the deal, as well as an additional £6 million in compensation for the UK’s failure to transfer vulnerable refugees.
It also claimed Britain should have relocated 300 refugees under the scheme, comparing it to the UK’s one-in, one-out agreement with France.
However, lawyers for the UK argued that it was “entirely logical” for the policy to be scrapped following the change of government after the 2024 general election, and said it was “simple common sense” that no further payments were due.
They maintained that the UK had not breached the agreement and insisted that Rwanda was not entitled to any of the compensation it was seeking.
Downing Street defended the decision to abandon the policy after the new government took office, following Rwanda’s decision to take the matter to court.
Under the previous Conservative administration, the UK had already spent £700 million on the scheme, which aimed to deter Channel crossings by sending asylum seekers who arrived in Britain via small boats to Rwanda.
However, only four volunteers were ever relocated before the plan was scrapped.
Rwanda’s Justice Minister and Attorney General, Emmanuel Ugirashebuja, told the court the country had incurred significant costs preparing for the partnership and accused the UK of abandoning its commitments.
He said Rwanda was not informed in advance of the decision and only learned about it through media reports, adding that the country would have preferred a formal apology instead of financial compensation.
Reacting to the ruling, a UK government spokesperson said Britain had “robustly” defended its position.
The government said it remains focused on reforms aimed at tightening border control, reducing incentives for illegal migration, and increasing the removal of individuals with no right to remain in the UK.